38Re: a hypothesis like the Farrer one
- Feb 17, 1998On 98-02-17 Brian E. Wilson wrote:
>Antonio Jerez wrote -I have not claimed that it is a total solution of the
>>As for myself I wholeheartedly endorse the part of the hypothesis of
>>Lagrange, Farrer and Gundry-Morgenthaler that presume Luke's use of
>>Matthew. I am more undecided about the form of the sources that Luke
>>used besides Matthew (and Mark). They may have been both written
>Fair enough, if you wish to hold that view. I would only comment that
>by itself the hypothesis that Luke used Matthew, Mark and other sources,
>and that Matthew used Mark, is not a solution to the synoptic problem to
>my way of thinking.
synoptic problem, but it is a big step on the way.
And as I have said before - I do not believe it is
possible to solve the synoptic problem in its entirety.
How are we to know 2000 years later all the streams
of oral traditions and written traditions that may have
fed the gospels in the NT?
>For one thing, Matthew contains hundreds of verses of material - aboutThat is true. Matthew contains hundreds of verses of material
>half his gospel - not found in Mark. A solution to the synoptic problem
>would, I think, have to be compatible with this phenomenon which can be
>observed in any synopsis.
that are not found in Mark. Most scholars believe he got part
of that material from a document called Q. I am sceptical
about that. I think Matthew made up quite a lot of what we
find in Q himself. A lot of the M material in Matthew was also
written by Matthew. What Matthew inherited from tradition
or made up by himself has to be decided on a case by case
>For another thing, is it not a rather odd idea that Luke should haveI don't think it odd at all. Luke had a lot of reasons to
>deliberately cannibalized two books (Matthew and Mark), already in use,
>to produce a third book (Luke)? Was that the done thing in those days?
write a gospel of his own. Mark had written a gospel
for gentile Christians that contained to few sayings
and made to radical a break with Judaism for Luke's
taste. Matthew on the other hand was to much molded
for Jewish-Christians for Luke to have much use of it in
his gentile Church. So Luke took what he deemed was
best out of both gospels, blended it with his own storys
and got a gospel that was better suited for gentiles at the
end of the first century.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>